Exploring the Boundaries: Is Quantum Mechanics Really the Problem?

[ZapperZ]

reilly—You evidently use the same technique. I claimed (and continue to do so, because by reading, correspondence, and conversation I have collected a mass of evidence to this effect) that "the vast majority of physicists substitutes its blissful ignorance of these deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics with a naïve semiclassical hotchpotch of mutually inconsistent ideas." You attribute to me the claim that many physicists are "blissfully ignorant''—period. This isn't quite the same, is it?

And you don't think there is a difference between scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence? Which one do you think that you have to be able to deduce what the "vast majority" does?

And no, I don't intend to be dragged into this "philosophical discussion". My question is with your methodology to be able to draw that kind of conclusion with such conviction.

Zz.

 

[koantum]

And you don't think there is a difference between scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence?

Anecdotal? Over 30 years of searching all but in vain for philosophically sound thinking in the physics literature.

As to scientific evidence, that doesn’t go beyond correlations between counter clicks.

If there were any shift in our own world-view, much of what we call 'evidence' would decamp from the old paradigm to the new in a most disloyal manner.

Charles Whitehead in the December 2004 issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies.​

And no, I don't intend to be dragged into this "philosophical discussion".

Don't.

 

[ZapperZ]

Anecdotal? Over 30 years of searching all but in vain for philosophically sound thinking in the physics literature.

You, of all people, should know the difference between "length of time" and "valid evidence". One doesn't automatically implies the other. You may have LOOKED at it or thought about it long enough, but your claim about people in the physics profession cannot simply be done within the confined of your 4 walls.

I asked about your METHODOLOGY in arriving at your accusation of my profession. So far, all I can deduce is that you have not done a systematic study nor survey. ALL you have done is based it on anecdotal evidence. Have you done a wide enough survey of practicing physicists and not just people who dabbled in philosophical implications of physics?

It is one thing to give an opinion on an issue. It is another to make a statement about a group of people without ample sampling of that group of people. All I asked is, where is this sampling done according to a standard statistically acceptable survey?

As to scientific evidence, that doesn’t go beyond counter clicks and the like.

If there were any shift in our own world-view, much of what we call 'evidence' would decamp from the old paradigm to the new in a most disloyal manner.

Charles Whitehead in the December 2004 issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies.​

Sorry, I'm not impressed by this, because you are in the wrong forum. If you wish, I can move this off to the Mind and Brain forum, or even the Philosophy forum. But don't try that here.

Zz.

 

[koantum]

ZapperZ—I am not accusing your profession. I respect your work as experimentalist as I respect the work of theoretical physicists. If I claim that the vast majority of musicians have no professional knowledge of biology, is that an accusation? But you don't need that kind of survey to establish the average practicing physicist's ignorance (blissful or otherwise) of the deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics. Did you even ask what these issues are? What I claim most physicists are ignorant about? I met a sufficiently fair sampling at conferences to be confident enough about my conclusions. Most physicists know zilch about what philosophers of science are discussing, and they don’t care, and they don’t need to care. The only thing that gets me is their floating of far-reaching ontologies (which of course capture the attention of the popular press) when all they have is an algorithm for calculating correlations between counter clicks.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ—I am not accusing your profession. I respect your work as experimentalist as I respect the work of theoretical physicists. If I claim that the vast majority of musicians have no professional knowledge of biology, is that an accusation? But you don't need that kind of survey to establish the average practicing physicist's ignorance (blissful or otherwise) of the deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics. Did you even ask what these issues are? What I claim most physicists are ignorant about? I met a sufficiently fair sampling at conferences to be confident enough about my conclusions. Most physicists know zilch about what philosophers of science are discussing, and they don’t care, and they don’t need to care. The only thing that gets me is their floating of far-reaching ontologies (which of course capture the attention of the popular press) when all they have is an algorithm for calculating correlations between counter clicks.

And again, you have not shown here where you have made an accurate enough sampling to arrive at your conclusion.

You also appear to contradicting yourself. On one hand, you said that us physicists are either ignorant of the "deep issues of philosphy of modern physics" or simply don't care about them. But on the other hand, we seem to also be "floating of far-reaching ontologies". Who is doing this if we, as a group, don't care? Are you able to conclude that since a few physicists dabbled in such thing, that the rest of us are equally "floating" along, while we continue to be ignorant of what it is?

This issue does not belong in the physics section. I strongly suggest, before I have to do surgery on this thread, that the discussion goes to the Philosophy forum so that the rest of us physicists can continue with our ignorance of it.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Some people make a living on the "Philosophy of Modern Physics". Others make a living on the Philosophy of "Philosophy of Modern Physics". Are all physicists "professional" philosophers at heart? What set or sub-set does thinking about a problem fit into? Has any professional philosopher made a "legitimate" contribution to the area of Physics? Can anyone categorize "a Physicist" as "a Philosopher"? Does the "degree" of training limit the person's ability to contribute (or condemn)?


How does the 'idea' of a 'good idea' fall into place especially when/if/and/etc. has validity (or no validity)?


We are all in different sub-sets; finding the 'right' sub-set to get involved in and forming a valid personal opinion is the key.




----wasn't this specific thread about the problems relating to QM?

 

[DrChinese]

Not on http://thisquantumworld.com" " by Lee Smolin (published in Update, the official magazine for Members of the New York Academy of Sciences, Jan/Feb 2006). Given the name and fame of the author, I think it deserves broad exposure.

My mistake, I see that I got his position mixed up with yours. Of course, Smolin is well respected but I would not agree with his characterization of fundamental physics as being in crisis. Who can say how long it should take until the next great theoretical discovery? (Besides, maybe there won't be any more... )

 

[koantum]

Who can say how long it should take until the next great theoretical discovery? (Besides, maybe there won't be any more... )

I have the sneaking feeling that you may be right. The next paradigm shift may even take us beyond science altogether. But I most stop here, ZapperZ has already threatened to throw me into the philosophy trash can.

 

[koantum]

You appear to contradicting yourself. On one hand, you said that us physicists are either ignorant of the "deep issues of philosphy of modern physics" or simply don't care about them. But on the other hand, we seem to also be "floating of far-reaching ontologies".

The contradiction (or paradox) is in the physics community itself. Quoting from the paper by Dennis Dieks:

The fact that interpretational problems do not receive much serious professional attention... seems related to the very nature of empirical science, in which empirical success is the ultimate goal and interpretation has at least "officially" the status of handmaiden. The paradox is that unofficially... physicists have quite outspoken opinions about the general ideas of most interpretations.​

 

[reilly]

reilly: I got a little confused about your comments about "properties existing only when measured ". Are you saying that your belief is such quantum properties ARE well-defined even if not measured? Or are you making no statement at all about that? (I am just trying to clarify your position a bit in my own mind.)

Part of the problem I have with some of the QT interpretation discussions, is that I really don't understand the notion of existence, other than at an intuitive level. Similarly, what exactly is reality?

Hence my personal take that "you don't know until you measure" How could I ever figure out whether the electrons in an EPR experiement are in a single state -- say the left electron is spin down -- while in transit to their measurements without measurements? I guess I'm making no statement at all -- I'm perfectly agnostic on the matter. What better example of blissful ignorance could there be?

Regards,
Reilly

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I've got a few things to do over the next few days, so I'll 1. thank lot's of people for making this a "happening thing," and 2. say that, in my view consciousness has nothing at all to do with QM-- other than the obvious matters of matter and the various perceptual neural-transducers. Along with many neuroscientists, Sir Francis Crick in particular, it's my view that consciousness is simply the cumulative effect of neural activity.

Until recently, notions of free will., consciousness and "brain-mind" duality were predominantly considered by philosophers -- their's was really the only game in town. My how things have changed -- science has increasingly taken over from philosophy, as it must, and as it did during Newton's time. Seems to me that philosophers are becoming less and less relevant and much less important than even 15 years ago in the area of mental phenomena -- the 19th century's approach to understanding nature is losing ground to the realities of the late 20th century.


To be continued.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

Sorry I hadn't noticed Reily had replied so this reply will probably seem out of joint with the previous posts.

Philosophy guides science and science guides philosophy.

I think it's fairly obvious there isn't a mystical quality to consciousness even if we are so primitive in understanding the way the human mind works; it's a bit of a stretch to invoke ideas such as a soul or collective consciousness or anything non material, to that extent the notion that it is merely a cumulative effect of neural activity is fairly obvious. The problem is, is it is of course wonderfully complicated, how does a thin strand of interconnected "wires" in a mass of interconnected cells possibly visualise an apple? What about a neuron or series of neurons stores that image, is there a feedback loop between consciousness and subconscience, how would inspirational thought work, how does intuition function, what about an electrical impulse through 700 cells causes us to feel joy, why is memory so analagous, what makes us self aware. Yes all this can be broken down into neurons, but all this can't be broken down into biology.

As to reillys points about Einstein, thanks for that by the way, it wasn't clear but I actually meant to use Einstein as a way of highlighting that the well educated can succesfully question the mainstream, String theory, preposterous imaginary maths or reality? Black body radiation, Heim Theory, Aether theories, all these non mainstream ideas could yield some fruit from well educated scientists. To dismiss those working out of kilter with science to me is a little short sighted. Who is to say what notions will have merit, suppose we found that the vacuum wasn't that at all and that it was indeed a fabric of space, no evidence of course, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility(BTW I'm happy with Einsteins notions, I'm just making a point )